mlukfc.com Forums - View Single Post

letsgotoofar · 17 Mar 2017, 14:12

Finally something I can comment on that TWG can't get all shirty about!

We producers would love to make a regular release schedule of pro-shot DVDs of shows happen, but for it to work for us, and to keep going at a more steady rate, people need to buy these like they buy Hollywood blockbusters, and they just don't.

Don't get me wrong, some of the complaints that other producers make about such DVDs ("filming shows conveys a deadly idea, that the film version of a show is a reasonable substitute for the live show, and that's the exact opposite of the message we want to communicate; besides, given the rise in ticket prices, who's to say someone doesn't opt for the DVD instead and take money out of our pocket?") are bullshit. It's intelligent not just in terms of preservation, but in terms of revenue for live performances, as seen from the upward spike in ticket sales that long-running Broadway shows like Chicago and The Phantom of the Opera received when their movies came out.

(To be fair, some arguments from the "let's film everything!" side are bullshit as well. While such taping could expand interest in theater, from a purely economic standpoint, Broadway is not dying. Grosses last year increased in record numbers. Flop rates generally have remained the same for a long time. Some would argue that the giant ticket price increases in the past few years may seem a big reason for Broadway to buckle under its own weight, but the numbers indicate that the audience has simply shifted. Now, New York is a destination for tourists. The industry simply hasn't gotten to a point of "adapt or die" for media accessibility, even if your favorite shows are closing, and an "evolution" where we move more toward taped theater will only be necessary when theater-going as a hobby/tourist attraction falls in both ticket sales and gross.)

I digress. Let me redirect: most producers' arguments against taping are bullshit. However, the cost. THE COST, MAN. It's called show business (emphasis mine) for a reason. Allowing for the fact that theater is legally defined as a high-risk investment, most people who invest in a business venture generally want to see a return on their investment. And a video is a serious investment, both of time and money, with little chance of return, especially when it is a filmed record of a live performance. The bottom line, sad to say, is money. And the problem with filming and releasing musicals (or even plays) is that it's simply not lucrative.

(Before we continue, I should add I'm not talking about filmed theater by not-for-profit entities such as the Metropolitan Opera, Live From Lincoln Center on PBS, NTLive, etc. -- those groups have generous donors who are able to foot the bill and pay for shows to be recorded without worrying about a return on their investment. And notice that they often neatly sidestep such for-profit production issues as royalties, marketing costs, distribution, etc., by just doing an HD broadcast instead of a commercial release.)

To explain why it's so hard and so expensive, I'll break down the process for you:

Securing the rights. Film/broadcast rights are not automatically granted to the producers of the show, so one would have to work out an arrangement with the author(s) and composer(s), both in terms of an initial upfront payment and in terms of royalties.
Pre-, during-, and post-filming union costs. Bear in mind I'm not just talking union salaries which get an increase due to filming, which is substantial enough; one has to contend with Equity (the actors' union), the Stage Directors and Choreographers Society, United Scenic Artists, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, and so on when it comes to salary hikes. But then there's the copyright issue, where we're talking about royalties after the fact, in addition to the salary hikes, to the creative team for use of blocking/staging, choreography, production design, etc. The work of a creative team on each production is copyrightable. This isn't something we can avoid, and it gets pricy.
The filming itself, and production costs. Filming of a really good pro-shot feature tends to be a three-day affair. Day 1 is done so that they can make sure all the equipment is working, and so the crew can see the show and get an idea of what they want to film, how best to shoot a specific scene or song, etc. Days 2 and 3 are actual recordings, and they do two days so they can cut together the best of what they get. As for the audience, on infrequent occasions at least one of the days is a normal performance where people have paid to be there, but the majority of the time, the audience for filming is chosen from a paper service like Black List or Black Tie (to rule out any of the conceivable unpredictable mishaps involving a real live audience), and tickets are free for all the shows, which is more money out of the producers' pockets. Aside from that, a fully realized filming costs real money, not only including paying everyone, but also for the entire bucket of what it costs to make a "professional" movie. These days, many shows only finally tie up enough capital to get past opening night at the eleventh hour; no way producers would take on the added burden. Whether released before or after a show closes, someone has to pony up the huge cost of filming, editing (and any other post-production), and releasing, which -- on the low end -- is at least $500,000 or more. Money they will likely never see back in their lifetime.
Finding a distributor. That's a whole other bag of cats, as, especially in this day and age, theater simply doesn't have widespread appeal with the evolution of other entertainment media, which is still spreading. The only shows that could potentially turn a profit from these would be the mega-hits (name brands like anything by Cirque du Soleil, or shows like Les Mis, Phantom, Rent, Cats, etc.), which hardly need it. Releasing a recording of a newer, comparatively obscure piece, no matter how much one loves it, would never be anything but even more money down the drain. Here's an example of an artistically-successful-but-commercially-D.O.A. Broadway show that got filmed: Passing Strange. Exceptionally well-filmed (by Spike Lee, no less), well-reviewed, a fine film recording of a show. So explain why the interest level is such that the video cannot be found among the top 10,000 titles on Amazon. One can point to newer distribution platforms, like online streaming (iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, etc.) or made-to-order DVDs, both of which sound like safe bets for profitability to the layman, but the problem with those is mainly that the technology is too new for theater as a whole to catch up with, and especially so with regard to unions (who haven't even begun to split hairs over royalties and other issues on digital platforms).

What all of this boils down to is that, after all is said and done, the relatively few people who actually purchase the DVD don't constitute enough revenue to create a good profit margin. There are always exceptions to what I've said above, but they also always have a reason that they are the exception and not the rule.

For example, Shrek: The Musical was part of a franchise propped up by DreamWorks, who can afford to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars on a DVD because they see it as an important, long-term investment, the accepted "price" of increasing exposure for its film/merchandise franchise to a larger audience.

And then there's the live DVD of Rent, which was already a popular property with a guaranteed audience base that had just made a fairly successful film only a couple years prior (or at least successful enough for Sony to sign on to distribute), the one which had the added "X factor" of being a special event (i.e., closing night). (In fact, the "special event" branding can be helpful -- special events or limited runs, for example the Les Mis anniversary shoots, get some degree of priority because that means the already limited buyers' demographic might increase.)

An example of avoiding what I'm talking about is Legally Blonde. Notice how it was never made available for sale, just broadcast on MTV a few times. It costs a ton more money for retail/direct-to-consumer distribution than to just have MTV pay you a fee to broadcast it on their channel. In this case, the producers of Legally Blonde, who likely covered some (or most) of the filming production expenses, were guaranteed a set amount of money from Viacom for the broadcasting rights. It's likely that they were then privy to additional fees if certain ratings benchmarks were achieved. That is cash in the bank, as opposed to waiting to see what the sales numbers on a DVD are and ending up "in the red."

Now, Bat in particular has a lot of things going for it (brand recognition in the form of the title and a recognizable score, to name two) that a lot of other examples of potential musicals filmed for DVD don't. But it still faces the same costs, and the same issue of potential profit. In the UK and Europe, it might go like hotcakes (let's face it, shows with brand recognition that only exists in mainly those areas have been filmed, like Elisabeth, Boy George's Taboo, Our House, Jerry Springer The Opera, etc.), but this needs to have universal appeal to approach serious profitability, and let's face it -- in America, Meat and Jim are mainly remembered by the broad public as those guys who did that one song back in '77 and that other song in '93 that get played at school dances and weddings every now and then. It's a niche interest. Only Jim fans (and to a certain extent Meat fans) know or care that this exists.

I would like it to be filmed professionally. I'd very much like to see it. And there is a good chance that at some point something will be filmed for archival purposes (the Theater On Film & Tape Archive at the Lincoln Center Library for the Performing Arts makes inexpensive archival recordings of Broadway shows, only available for viewing to serious researchers, at minimal cost, but those tapings basically aim a camera at the stage, and pan occasionally, and that's it). But I don't know if a commercial release is on the cards unless or until the show gains more of a reputation and is a bigger success. (And sometimes not even then -- notice no DVD of Wicked or Hamilton is coming out any time soon. Why set aside money to professionally film even a hit, when it's hard enough to fund a show as it is without throwing in the additional cost of filming a video which is probably even less likely to be profitable than the show itself?)

17 Mar 2017, 14:12	#556
letsgotoofar Super Loafer Join Date: 12.09.2016 Location: In front of a computer, duh. Posts: 436	Finally something I can comment on that TWG can't get all shirty about! We producers would love to make a regular release schedule of pro-shot DVDs of shows happen, but for it to work for us, and to keep going at a more steady rate, people need to buy these like they buy Hollywood blockbusters, and they just don't. Don't get me wrong, some of the complaints that other producers make about such DVDs ("filming shows conveys a deadly idea, that the film version of a show is a reasonable substitute for the live show, and that's the exact opposite of the message we want to communicate; besides, given the rise in ticket prices, who's to say someone doesn't opt for the DVD instead and take money out of our pocket?") are bullshit. It's intelligent not just in terms of preservation, but in terms of revenue for live performances, as seen from the upward spike in ticket sales that long-running Broadway shows like Chicago and The Phantom of the Opera received when their movies came out. (To be fair, some arguments from the "let's film everything!" side are bullshit as well. While such taping could expand interest in theater, from a purely economic standpoint, Broadway is not dying. Grosses last year increased in record numbers. Flop rates generally have remained the same for a long time. Some would argue that the giant ticket price increases in the past few years may seem a big reason for Broadway to buckle under its own weight, but the numbers indicate that the audience has simply shifted. Now, New York is a destination for tourists. The industry simply hasn't gotten to a point of "adapt or die" for media accessibility, even if your favorite shows are closing, and an "evolution" where we move more toward taped theater will only be necessary when theater-going as a hobby/tourist attraction falls in both ticket sales and gross.) I digress. Let me redirect: most producers' arguments against taping are bullshit. However, the cost. THE COST, MAN. It's called show business (emphasis mine) for a reason. Allowing for the fact that theater is legally defined as a high-risk investment, most people who invest in a business venture generally want to see a return on their investment. And a video is a serious investment, both of time and money, with little chance of return, especially when it is a filmed record of a live performance. The bottom line, sad to say, is money. And the problem with filming and releasing musicals (or even plays) is that it's simply not lucrative. (Before we continue, I should add I'm not talking about filmed theater by not-for-profit entities such as the Metropolitan Opera, Live From Lincoln Center on PBS, NTLive, etc. -- those groups have generous donors who are able to foot the bill and pay for shows to be recorded without worrying about a return on their investment. And notice that they often neatly sidestep such for-profit production issues as royalties, marketing costs, distribution, etc., by just doing an HD broadcast instead of a commercial release.) To explain why it's so hard and so expensive, I'll break down the process for you: Securing the rights. Film/broadcast rights are not automatically granted to the producers of the show, so one would have to work out an arrangement with the author(s) and composer(s), both in terms of an initial upfront payment and in terms of royalties. Pre-, during-, and post-filming union costs. Bear in mind I'm not just talking union salaries which get an increase due to filming, which is substantial enough; one has to contend with Equity (the actors' union), the Stage Directors and Choreographers Society, United Scenic Artists, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, and so on when it comes to salary hikes. But then there's the copyright issue, where we're talking about royalties after the fact, in addition to the salary hikes, to the creative team for use of blocking/staging, choreography, production design, etc. The work of a creative team on each production is copyrightable. This isn't something we can avoid, and it gets pricy. The filming itself, and production costs. Filming of a really good pro-shot feature tends to be a three-day affair. Day 1 is done so that they can make sure all the equipment is working, and so the crew can see the show and get an idea of what they want to film, how best to shoot a specific scene or song, etc. Days 2 and 3 are actual recordings, and they do two days so they can cut together the best of what they get. As for the audience, on infrequent occasions at least one of the days is a normal performance where people have paid to be there, but the majority of the time, the audience for filming is chosen from a paper service like Black List or Black Tie (to rule out any of the conceivable unpredictable mishaps involving a real live audience), and tickets are free for all the shows, which is more money out of the producers' pockets. Aside from that, a fully realized filming costs real money, not only including paying everyone, but also for the entire bucket of what it costs to make a "professional" movie. These days, many shows only finally tie up enough capital to get past opening night at the eleventh hour; no way producers would take on the added burden. Whether released before or after a show closes, someone has to pony up the huge cost of filming, editing (and any other post-production), and releasing, which -- on the low end -- is at least $500,000 or more. Money they will likely never see back in their lifetime. Finding a distributor. That's a whole other bag of cats, as, especially in this day and age, theater simply doesn't have widespread appeal with the evolution of other entertainment media, which is still spreading. The only shows that could potentially turn a profit from these would be the mega-hits (name brands like anything by Cirque du Soleil, or shows like Les Mis, Phantom, Rent, Cats, etc.), which hardly need it. Releasing a recording of a newer, comparatively obscure piece, no matter how much one loves it, would never be anything but even more money down the drain. Here's an example of an artistically-successful-but-commercially-D.O.A. Broadway show that got filmed: Passing Strange. Exceptionally well-filmed (by Spike Lee, no less), well-reviewed, a fine film recording of a show. So explain why the interest level is such that the video cannot be found among the top 10,000 titles on Amazon. One can point to newer distribution platforms, like online streaming (iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, etc.) or made-to-order DVDs, both of which sound like safe bets for profitability to the layman, but the problem with those is mainly that the technology is too new for theater as a whole to catch up with, and especially so with regard to unions (who haven't even begun to split hairs over royalties and other issues on digital platforms). What all of this boils down to is that, after all is said and done, the relatively few people who actually purchase the DVD don't constitute enough revenue to create a good profit margin. There are always exceptions to what I've said above, but they also always have a reason that they are the exception and not the rule. For example, Shrek: The Musical was part of a franchise propped up by DreamWorks, who can afford to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars on a DVD because they see it as an important, long-term investment, the accepted "price" of increasing exposure for its film/merchandise franchise to a larger audience. And then there's the live DVD of Rent, which was already a popular property with a guaranteed audience base that had just made a fairly successful film only a couple years prior (or at least successful enough for Sony to sign on to distribute), the one which had the added "X factor" of being a special event (i.e., closing night). (In fact, the "special event" branding can be helpful -- special events or limited runs, for example the Les Mis anniversary shoots, get some degree of priority because that means the already limited buyers' demographic might increase.) An example of avoiding what I'm talking about is Legally Blonde. Notice how it was never made available for sale, just broadcast on MTV a few times. It costs a ton more money for retail/direct-to-consumer distribution than to just have MTV pay you a fee to broadcast it on their channel. In this case, the producers of Legally Blonde, who likely covered some (or most) of the filming production expenses, were guaranteed a set amount of money from Viacom for the broadcasting rights. It's likely that they were then privy to additional fees if certain ratings benchmarks were achieved. That is cash in the bank, as opposed to waiting to see what the sales numbers on a DVD are and ending up "in the red." Now, Bat in particular has a lot of things going for it (brand recognition in the form of the title and a recognizable score, to name two) that a lot of other examples of potential musicals filmed for DVD don't. But it still faces the same costs, and the same issue of potential profit. In the UK and Europe, it might go like hotcakes (let's face it, shows with brand recognition that only exists in mainly those areas have been filmed, like Elisabeth, Boy George's Taboo, Our House, Jerry Springer The Opera, etc.), but this needs to have universal appeal to approach serious profitability, and let's face it -- in America, Meat and Jim are mainly remembered by the broad public as those guys who did that one song back in '77 and that other song in '93 that get played at school dances and weddings every now and then. It's a niche interest. Only Jim fans (and to a certain extent Meat fans) know or care that this exists. I would like it to be filmed professionally. I'd very much like to see it. And there is a good chance that at some point something will be filmed for archival purposes (the Theater On Film & Tape Archive at the Lincoln Center Library for the Performing Arts makes inexpensive archival recordings of Broadway shows, only available for viewing to serious researchers, at minimal cost, but those tapings basically aim a camera at the stage, and pan occasionally, and that's it). But I don't know if a commercial release is on the cards unless or until the show gains more of a reputation and is a bigger success. (And sometimes not even then -- notice no DVD of Wicked or Hamilton is coming out any time soon. Why set aside money to professionally film even a hit, when it's hard enough to fund a show as it is without throwing in the additional cost of filming a video which is probably even less likely to be profitable than the show itself?) Last edited by letsgotoofar; 17 Mar 2017 at 14:17.